halofandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:MA37 Individual Combat Weapon System
288 Reserve Since the normal maximum amount of reserve ammunition is only 288, rather then the 600, shouldn't the infobox be changed to show that, and have a note about the 600 rounds? I was only thinking this because the sniper rifle says 24 in its box, while in Nightfall much more can be held. Arcdash 18:09, September 17, 2010 (UTC) :Bungie was "generous" in Nightfall. As some weapons can be used up relatively quickly, Bungie gave the player extra clips to make it easier for them. This happened with "Truth and Reconciliation", also.-- Forerun '' 18:19, September 17, 2010 (UTC)'' ::Right, but I was asking about whether 288 should be the maximum reserve ammunition in the info box, since the 600 maximum rounds was only for one mission. :: ::Forerunner, I couldn't agree much more. N00BHUNTER666 23:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC) Merge Back in April, the merge proposal pointed out that the MA37 has an embedded metal plate on its side. The proposal was closed due to majority wanting to wait for full information to be released/the game to be released. Now, I'm reviving the merge again, seeing that what I sought to do back then has returned. The metal plate reads as so: MA5C - Mk 4 7.62 mm NATO Round Payload Mag air cooled gas operated AR Based on the provided, it is now apparent that the MA37 (which is the Army designation) also has another title; the MA5C Mk 4 (which is the Marine designation). Seeing that the MA37 behaves entirely similar to the MA5C, I suggest that all of the information merged into the MA5C article, with a section dedicated to the MA37. An example of the format/layout can be seen here (note: ignore the information in the linked article. simply focus at the layout).- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:04, September 19, 2010 (UTC) Support # As per above.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:04, September 19, 2010 (UTC) # As per above, also, the note about it being called the MA5 in the Navy may simply refer to the weapon series as a whole, i.e. MA5A/B/C all included. Also, worth noting is that in Waypoint's weapons video that came out recently it was stated that it has been in service since 2437. 37, hence the name. This would mean that the MA5 (same weapon) has most likely been in service with the Navy since either 2405 or, more likely 2505. So it makes it pretty clear that, for example, the MA5B and C have their own pages as they are different weapons (though, as I understand it, they are supposed to be visually identical, the only differences being smaller magazines to prevent jamming and a lowered rate of fire to prevent spray and pray, so it's a newer version) but the MA37 and MA5C are the same weapon. Sure there are a few visual differences, but if you put a rail system, or a scope, or a grenade launcher, or a different stock even, on an M16A4, it's still an M16 series A4 version, not a different version. Also, more polygons and wanting a more grittier for the game meant a change in most of the visuals. Alex T Snow 20:27, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # I'm going to have to agree, and I'd also support a merge of the SRS99C and SRS99C-AMB, as per below. As of right now, basically every point the opposition has made has been resolved by Subtank. ' / / STRYKER' [ COM | | | AAU/HUM ] 22:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC) # I think they should be merged, but change the name to "assault rifle" or a name that designates that the merged page is all tha rifles. Heloman1 21:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC) # As per below. Thus, you have my vote! As for everyone else in the opposition, please rethink your position based on the discussion below, on whether in-universe or not. [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 19:10, October 12, 2010 (UTC) # The MA37 IS the MA5C. It says so on the side of the weapon. The Army just has a different name for it. It's the same thing as the US Army or Air Force giving a weapon a different designation than the Marine Corps and Navy today. -- User:Griever0311 # They may not be perfect replica's of each other, but they are so close that if they were to merge we could just list MA5C special traits in the trivia section. --Kajoman 00:02, April 9, 2011 (UTC) # they are not identical in looks. but they are identical in function. Neutral :I hate voting a Neutral but from the looks of it, it looks like I may after all have to chip in my two cents. I've taken a look through the debate, and the accompanying issue, and from the looks of it, the argument of what's really at stake is the approach of this wiki. Subtank's proposal is aimed largely at pointing the creation of articles in a what the universe described has said, whether as the most of opposition says the problem is their "real-world" differences. I guess this is perhaps a key illustration of the difference between a Watsonian versus Doylist; do we approach this wiki from an in-universe perspective, or an out one? Unless we understand this this debate will likely just continue with each sides bouncing off each other, but the real issue at stake is the perspective of this wiki: do we merge because that's what this universe covered here says, or not merge because the outside world says it's not. Think about it based on this, and then say what you think you must. [[User:Tuckerscreator|Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 02:24, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Normally, I would delete Neutral section because they are in fact useless and not contributing to the process but this is an exception and I will provide a short explanation. ::Halopedia has ''(and should) always been in an in-universe perspective in all of its fictional contents (i.e. event article such as Operation: UPPER CUT), mainly because in-universe is more interesting to read at than out-universe. Only realworld content would need to use out-of-universe perspective because it makes more sense (i.e. campaign levels articles such as Long Night of Solace). If anything, simply consider this: Halopedia is modelled after Wookieepedia, and its policy on content has always been in-universe. Of course, if there's out-of-universe content in an in-universe article, there is no need to create a separate article and one can always include "Production notes" section to publish the out-universe content. Moreover, one needs to consider the changes made over the years in the development process such as the amount of technology used in creating the content. Simply ignoring this and shouting out "No u, it's a mistake!" is like B.net's privet caboose rage over canon that he thought he had grasped of already. What you know all this while is not the ultimate canon anymore! John-117 might as well be a girl.... ;) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 12:29, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::And I'm sure you would love to make that happen... In-universe perspective, of course, is the perspective that this wiki should take as well as any other, but the question is with the CREATION of articles, noy just the perspective of them. For example, we don't create a 2nd article for "Unnamed NMPD Officer 2" for the NMPD officer that accompanies you all the way from Kizingo Boulevard (level) to the very end of NMPD HQ (level), until a Brute Chieftain kills him, because, functionally, within the plot, he accomplishes very little. It's sort of the opposite sort of issue that I think the opposition has with this article; they may be the same, but is their gameplay differences enough to warrant a separation? I myself am leaning towards positive, but for everyone I think that's the question that they want answered. [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 14:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::That would be within the questions of notability of the subject: is the subject a ''significant subject, capable of being able to support itself as free-standing article without needing other article to support it and does it have a potential of growth -- in terms of quality in content or in expanding the article itself excluding trivial information -- or at the very least have some valuable information that could be interesting to read about? As for your example; we don't really know if it is really the same NMPD officer that got killed by the Brute Chieftain. After all, H3: ODST recycles voice-actors/biped models, like all other games. If anything, that's like saying one Sangheili Field Marshall is hunting down and killing members of Noble Team in Halo: Reach... ;) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 16:59, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::We know that it's the same one, he's invincible throughout the entire level, same voice actor, same role throughout, etc. Though my point was: Is the notability of the information regarding the MA37 enough to classify it as separate enough from the MA5C, or should canon place a higher stock over player experience in this example? Canon would say the NMPD officer is his own character, but player experience says he's not important enough to get his article. So canon says here that the MA5C and the MA37 may be the same weapon, but does player experience with both say that they're different enough to be kept separate? [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 17:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I don't recall seeing any invincible allies other than the ODSTs in the game.. I swear I killed everyone in the game and even my ODST ally... he can't die!! ::::::And it would go with the latter. Canon ''would say the NMPD officer is his own character, but we don't have any concrete proof that it does. Similarly, canon would say one Sangheili Field Marshall is his own character and that he leads a strike team to disrupt installation on Reach and hunts down members of Noble Team (and successfully killing Kat and Emile as implied in this ongoing discussion) but there is no concrete proof that it is. If player experience is more important over canon, then perhaps articles for different versions of objects from different games should be created.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:49, October 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I see then. So here regarding the MAs... canon trumps here, or player experience does? (Oh, and as noted here, right at "The officer in the tower" and also here, at the end of all the shenanigans, 3:21 or so, the officer is indeed invincible.) [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 18:17, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Canon always trumps over player experience but player experience always have a say. Could have sworn the officer died...- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:41, October 12, 2010 (UTC) Oppose # Bungie's website states that the Marines name it the MA5 not MA5C. The MA5C has a different shape to it and has a straight top unlike the more angled top on the MA37 and MA5B. Marines are also seen using the MA37 in Long Night of Solace and Pillar of Autumn levels. The Bungie website also stated that it entered service in 2437 which is over 100 years before the events of Reach and H3. See this. ::Did you not see the metal plate I provided? The "Mk 4" makes it reasonable to imply that the rifle is the fourth generation/model, being in service for over 100 years. Part of the reason as to why the design has a different, though minor, design is to show off their game engine (hence more polygons than H3 Marine) and to make it look more realistic (refer to Dev Commentary). As for your "Marines are also seen using the MA37", Bungie wouldn't want to waste space by adding another weapon model if they operate and behave similarly. Additionally, this is where canon policy is enforced; Game Canon trumps over Other Media (Bungie.net). As such, your point is moot.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 07:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC) # The weapons are obviously different with power accuracy and range ,also i don't know how to do the oppose templateAdmiralmorris 22:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Those does not matter. What matters is the canon content.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Why is it not cannon other than ammo that is the only difference between the assault rifles from the other halo games ::but yet they still have their own pages.Admiralmorris 00:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :::????? - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # — We have separate pages for different variants of the SRS99C and the pintle-mounted M247 variants, this should be no different. Also, "Mark __" doesn't completely signify that a weapon is the same as another. For example, the "Mark 48 Light Machine Gun" is a variant of the M249 SAW, however, the two are different in many different capacities. The '37 features an entirely different stock assembly, magazine, firing module, fore end, and pistol grip; the only thing it shares with the '5C is the 7.62mm NATO cartridge and the magazine capacity. ::If the weapon behaves and operates similarly to its base model, then it should most definitely be merged into the base model with its own dedicated section. In the case of the MA37, the only thing different is its structure/design and I agree with you; it looks completely distinct from the MA5C. However, part of this can be explained due to the graphical updates made to the game engine. And I quote; :: ::I'm new here and don't exactly know my way way around wiki very well, so I apologize if this is in the wrong place, but I do happen to be a self-proclaimed weapons expert. These articles should not be merged, they are different firearms and should have different pages. Merging these pages is like merging the pages for the 2010 Ford Mustang and 1967 Ford Mustang because they both have four wheels and six tail lights. DerKonig 18:38, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :: :: They are different'' models. The MA5 is an automatic peashooter with the accuracy of a shotgun. It took 8 shots to kill a Grunt! ''A Grunt! The MA37 is the BOMB. It's both accurate and powerful. N00BHUNTER666 23:53, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :: I oppose, they are different rifles. It's like merging a Cold War M16's page with a modern M16's. The CW's is full auto and the modern one is 3-shot burst. Halo 3's Assault rifle is an automatic peashooter with a shotgun's accuracy, and Halo Reach's is powerful and accurate. ::The above quote should be sufficient. If Halo 3 had this update, no doubt in my mind Bungie would design the MA5C with even more polygons and with even more detail. Other than that, the MA37 behaves and operates similarly to the MA5C. It even has the same sound file (pointless but related). I agree with your example, because the weapon variant behaves completely different from the base model. However, this is not the case of the MA37. ::As for the "separated articles", refer to my first sentence. I would most definitely in support of merging Halo 2's sniper rifle into Halo: CE's SRS99C article; the AMB article has a copied text from the SRS99C and it's simply redundant. As for the M247, the HMG variant behaves completely different from the GPMG. Like your example, I don't see why these two should be separated.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # - Per Grizzlei. '''Helljumper' U T 19:00, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # — Fercrissakes, Bungie would not have gone to all the effort of advertising it as a new weapon with a new designation if they just wanted it to be another MA5C! The game's manual even lists it as the MA37.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:13, September 21, 2010 (UTC) ::The truth speaks for itself.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:17, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # - I have to agree with Major Tony on this. The differences between the MA5B and C as seen in the Halo Trilogy are MINIMAL compared to the differences between those two models and the MA37, yet Halopedia regards the differences between the MA5B and MA5C as sufficient to give them separate articles. I see absolutely no reason why, if those minimal differences are enough to warrant separate articles, the differences between the MA5C and the MA37, which are at LEAST an order of magnitude GREATER, aren't enough to warrant separate articles as well. Dewback rancher 16:41, September 24, 2010 (UTC) ::The thing you seem to disregard is that the MA5B and C are confirmed to be different models of the MA5 series, whereas the MA37 is simply an Army designation for the MA5C, as per metalplate on the sides of the rifle. Designation =/= Model.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:01, September 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm not disregarding that, I just simply don't find that to be the be-all, end-all of evidence, as there is precedent for writing on the weapons' in-game models =/= their actual designation and/or model: the Rocket Launcher generally has "SPNKr" emblazoned on the side, yet if I'm not mistaken that is NOT the weapon's actual model OR designation. In other words, that alone is not sufficient evidence to say it IS an MA5C in the absence of corroborating evidence. Which I have not seen to my satisfaction yet. Remember, just because I disagree with you does NOT mean I am ignorant of the evidence you're using. Dewback rancher 19:35, September 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::The differences between the MA5B and C is larger than that between the MA5C and MA37. By omitting graphical updates (i.e. polygon count, because graphics makes everything prettier as time passes. For more on graphical differences, refer to my comment under Tony's) and reviewing it from gameplay perspective, you can see that the MA5B had gross inaccuracy, larger capacity, shorter range (debateable), and faster rate of fire than the MA5C. This is different from the MA5C and the MA37 where the only change is the slightly lowered rate of fire. Other than that, the MA37 is a carbon-copy of the MA5C, only to be labelled using Army designation. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the MA5B and MA5C are similar as they are largely different when compared to the differences between MA5C and MA37. That, and my model =/= designation comment. As for the SPNKr weapons, the problem is that they are confirmed to be different models. If it was otherwise, then I don't see why the designation weapon should be given its own article. It should be merged into its base model, as per my comment on the SRS99C. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) # - Bungie is highly prone to misprinting or printing early concepts of weapon names, as evidenced by the Reach magnum and M19 rocket launcher. Every source states that it is either called MA37 or (just) MA5.-- FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 07:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Refer to Alex T Snow's comment and my proposal's evidence for merge. Bungie may have been negligent for errors in the past but unless some official statement is given, we have to treat everything as canon. Logic and common sense apply. Regarding the M6G'B, it has been confirmed that the weapon is the M6G regardless of how you want to argue, and that gives off the implication that the typo on the wepaon is not actually a "typo" but instead a new labelling/designation system employed by the UNSC (and Bungie). We need to treat everything that is in-game as canon, and this nameplate is part of that. Also, I thought we've cleared that M6G issue a long time ago...... Even Waypoint's Implements of War video refers the M6G as having a smart scope attached (*hint hint KFA 2x*)... - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :::First off, I don't know how many times I have to tell you not to take everything that Bungie does as on purpose; it's absolutely ridiculous. It really seems like your logic is just all over the place. The MA5C is an upgrade to the MA5B. Furthermore, a Mk 4 variant would be an even newer variant. How is it even possible that the Army would be using a super upgraded variant of the weapon the Marines don't even use yet? Even further, the MA37 is much more retro looking and functioning so there's no way that it would be an MA5C. I think anyone here can tell you that this weapon is not an MA5C variant. The only thing holding this back is the nameplate. That's it. Also, how does Waypoint stating that the M6G has a scope prove your thesis? We already have it confirmed that it uses the KFA-2.-- FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 23:22, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Either way, everything should be considered unless an official party says otherwise. Yes, the MA5C is an updated firearm of the MA5B. I never said it isn't. Yes, the Mk4 would be an even newer variant. Thus, could you not consider the MA5C used in H3 being a newer newer variant than the Mk4? As I said to Tony, the MA5C in H3 had less freedom than the MA37 in H:R and, as such, would not have any space for extra details. If H3 had H:R's graphical updates, no doubt in my mind Bungie would at least add details to the firearm. It's all about using those polygons and having more space to construct the gun. I don't understand how you can treat a nameplate as a mistake if it hasn't contradict anything. And please don't start the designation=model discussion... I've already solved that... ::::"How is it even possible that the Army would be using a super upgraded variant of the weapon the Marines don't even use yet?" -- Retcon. ::::As for the M6G, it's not supposed to. It's only to remind you in case you forget... >.< - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:36, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::Are you forgetting that Bungie did infact state something that made this contradictory? They said the Marines and Navy call it the MA5, making it impossible to be an MA5C Mk 4. Putting all things aside about if it's an MA5C or not, merging articles isn't a good idea. This weapon is a differently acting weapon in a different game. That, along with the fact that some sub-variants deserve their own page (M6C/SOCOM, major Warthog variants, M247H, others) should be enough to merit its own page.-- FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 17:16, October 17, 2010 (UTC) # - Merge this, and we might aswell merge the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Repeater. Teh Halfblud ::Both the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Repeater are confirmed to be two different models, just like the MA5B and MA5C... *sigh* - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Well then Kat. Teh Halfblud 17:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC) # - It is undeniably a member of the same family, but it is markedly different in more than just aesthetics. Besides, the Army tended to get the least advanced equpment, with tech being given to other branches more freely. It is not unlikely that it was in fact a prototype being given to the Army for use on insurgents. If it did well, which it clearly did, then it would be tweaked for Marine usage and given to them for use on Covenant. It is more accurate, fires slightly slower than the MA5C, is slightly less powerful, has a thinner profile, and was jagged, which could lead it to snag on equipment. The MA5C is clearly a more refined weapon, better suited for mid-close range operations because it is more ferocious and ergonomic. Why else give the "less-important" Army superior equipment than to be used as guinea pigs for a possibly faulty piece of equipment? They only have a single player-usable tank on mankind's most important asset among the stars. The Army has always been the neglected little brother to the Navy (the NON-disposable SPARTAN-II's) and Marines (the Orbital Drop Shock Troopers), and only gets unrefined, disposable, fire and forget commandos who get advanced SPI Armor, but have a terrible survival record, because unlike well known public figures like SPARTAN-II's and people with family like ODST's, they don't exist and are relatively cheap and therefore the hundreds who die aren't going to leave a mark on morale. If the Army is GIVEN the short straw, then why not give them weapons that, for all the REMF's know, could be a collosal failure instead of give them to more "valuble" units and branches that the war supposedly hinges on and could die from possible equipment failure. :Besides, the Reach section on the M6G page didn't get much support, so the page's quality is higher if it is an individual entity rather than an add-on. Delta1138 20:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC) ::A concise article is far more of value and quality than an article of duplicated information. Also, Army is cool. ;) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 20:50, September 28, 2010 (UTC) # - There's really no doubt about it, they're both apart of the same family, but I just think that two designations should remain as two designations. I mean, the two are clearly different weapons, and although I do find it strange that there are weapons dedicated to the Army, and then weapons dedicated to the Marines which are standard issue (compared to our present times where both Marines and the Army use the M16 weapon line) I still think in general the two are separate weapons, and should remain as such. The Freelancer 00:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Again, quality is lost if we remain in such path. All we would have is copied content from the base article...- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 12:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Wha--.............. What? The Freelancer 00:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC) # -Actually I lean more neutral on this, but a simple merge of the MA5C and MA37 isn't enough if you're going to do this, then it really needs to be the MA5 page that is merged to contain all MA5 variants. As it is now it's like having a page for an M16 that lists separate pages for the variants and then choosing to merge the M16A3 and M16A4 models. I think it should either be a complete overhaul of the MA5 section or leave it alone. This is a half measure, IMO. --Spamhammer "I reject your reality and substitute my own." 16:41, October 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Honestly, I am confused with your comment and the Wikipedia example you supplied. Wikipedia's MOS doesn't always work on Halopedia but one can always try to fit it in. If anything, I think what Tony has commented in the past would make the most sense. His comment might provide the best analogy.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:18, October 12, 2010 (UTC) # -I oppose it because it just doesn't make any sense. The MA37 predates the MA5C, so why would you merge them? The 37 stands for 2437, so it's kind of impossible for it to be a variant (unless the UNSC took a giant step back in weapons, which is highly unlikely). In fact, it would make alot more sense if the MA5C was a variant of the MA37, but it isn't. It also performs differently from the MA5C and looks differently. This page should not be merged. The FPS Vet 18:54, November 10, 2010 (UTC) # I think we should make one page, Assault rifle, then divide it into sections; MA37, MA5B, MA5C, MA5K. EPICGAMER567 23:48, November 29, 2010 (UTC) 1. I oppose because the MA37 and the MA5C are two very different rifles. It would be like going onto Wikipedia and merging the M4 article and the M16 article together. True, they're both MA5 series rifles, but they're very different. SPARTAN-014 19:27, December 12, 2010 (UTC)SPARTAN-014SPARTAN-014 19:27, December 12, 2010 (UTC) 1. I oppose because the weapon is totally different. It may be similar to others but is quite different from the halo 3 modle. Second, its known as the MA3'''7 not MA57. Third, they're from two different gamesJosh029 17:24, January 22, 2011 (UTC) 1. I oppose for the following reasons: -Since the UNSC Army seems to use older weapons than the UNSC Navy and Marine Corps (M392 over BR55, M45 over M90 for example), it is possible that the MA37 is the original MA5 or MA5A if there was one. -Design. Game engine enhancements aside, look at the MA37 then look at the MA5C and the 5B for that matter. The MA5B/C designs are much more streamlined. The MA5B/C's flashlight also looks more like a dedicated part of the weapon rather than an afterthought which in turn became a standard issue forward handguard modification on the MA37. On the MA5B/C, the ammunition counter is attached to the upper portion of what you could call the barrel shroud if it follows an AK pattern, where as on the MA37 there's a good half inch between the counter and shroud. Bungie could have designed that even with Halo 1's game engine. -It's Bungie. We all know that they have a degree of laziness and like to reuse things. In this case the MA5C's placard. If this gets merged then the BR55 and BR55HB articles and the Plasma Rifle and Brute Plasma Rifle articles might as well be merged. Viggen37 20:15, January 25, 2011 (UTC) From the start, I agree with Viggen37's comment. Besides, what is more canon, a graphic detail that could be accidental by the artists, that isn't accepted by Bungie, against everyone of Bungie's and other official sources stating it is the MA37 ICWS, not the MA5C. I mean, a tiny detail like the one of a warthog's tyre (it says Puma (wink wink RvB)) against Bungie.net and the Halo Reach instruction manual. Yes, Bungie does make mistakes, but they fix them, so why are they sticking with the title: MA37, instead of just saying it is a variant of the MA5B rifle. Use your head subtank. Seriously, they would of just named it MA5C if it were intended. Beside, like Viggen37 said, the Army gets all the bad stuff. They get the MA37 instead of the more advanced and also quite available MA5B. M392 instead of BR55, M45 instead of M90. So, why would the Army have the MA5C, nevermind a MK IV variant of it.Use you head. It has been confirmed as the MA37 by Bungie. '''How you do not consider that to be official Halo canon is beyond me. Pancake301 00:30, May 19, 2011 (UTC) Its a different gun altogether. The pistols all have different pages and the suppressed SMG has its own page. Fuzz 02:17, June 1, 2011 (UTC) MA5C Mk4 Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I think the MA37/MA5C Mk 4 issue has a very simple explanation. The MA37 is simply the Army's designation for the MA5C Mk 4, not an entirely different weapon. But why does it look different? It's a stripped down special forces variant. Everything about the Mk 4 has been redesigned with spec ops in mind. The ammo counter/compass is mounted on a rail, so it can be removed and replaced with a scope if needed. The front housing appears to be easily removable, revealing what looks like a carry handle underneath. The foregrip and flashlight assembly can be dropped from the weapon, allowing a grenade launcher or shotgun to take its place. The collapsible stock and slightly shorter barrel make the weapon more manageable in close quarters, such as urban combat. Z 20:37, June 18, 2012 (UTC)